Gujarat HC Quashes POCSO-BNS FIR After Complainant Settles, Despite APP’s Objection Over Seriousness

The petitioners sought quashing of an FIR registered at Palanpur Taluka Police Station under Sections 74, 75, 115(2), 137(2), 127(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 329(3), 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 8, 12 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

The complainant appeared and filed an affidavit stating that the dispute had been amicably settled and that he had no objection to quashing the FIR

The State opposed the petition, relying on the seriousness of the allegations

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582; Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, 2009 (1) GLH 31; Manoj Sharma v. State, 2009 (1) GLH 190; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604

The Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed to secure the ends of justice where, in the circumstances, their continuation would amount to an abuse of process and serve no fruitful purpose.

The FIR invoked the specified BNS provisions and Sections 8, 12 and 17 of the POCSO Act

The Court treated the complainant’s affidavit and the parties’ settlement as establishing that the grievance had been resolved and that the complainant did not wish to prosecute

It concluded that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process and serve no fruitful purpose, and therefore quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice

Although the APP opposed the petition on grounds of seriousness, the judgment did not separately analyse the effect of the POCSO allegations or explain how that consideration affected the settlement-based request

Direct service was permitted, and the Registry was directed to accept the complainant’s advocate’s vakalatnama.